Skip to content

Jews were Islamic Arabs’ VICTIMS of Land Grabbing, Stupid!

November 25, 2012

A historically and politically naif Libertarian told me that the Jews are land grabbers and guilty of “ethnocide” so it just deserved to be militarily attacked by Palestinians and its faux Islamic allies, exposed by the media and international community as an “apartheid state” and blood-libeled.

In fact, this Libertarian, owner and webmaster of a blogsite called AntiPinoy.com, said the following:

  • “ISRAEL = A Zionist state that was built by ethnocide.” 
  • “Just because The ISLAMIC OTTOMAN empire killed HUNDREDS OF MILLION KAFIRS UNDER ITS RULE. – does not mean Zionist can do likewise…”
  • “The Jews and Arabs were living in Peace..”
  • “Then the Zionists (not not all Jews are Zionists) came and undertook the landgrabs.”
  • “The Palestinians are against the Zionist state – and the jews who support Zionism.”
  • “The islamists are not against individual Jews – they are against the Zionist state…”
  • “The individual palestinians and individual jews can conduct trade and commerce – this time around without the apartheid policies of the Zionist state…”

I debunked all of these factually and historically incorrect allegations and blood libels here.

Did the Jews steal or grab Arab lands? Well, anyone who’d dare to make or spread such a dishonest claim is either a moron or an anti-Israel/antisemitic propagandist.

The undeniable truth is, there is one very reliable, eye-witness source who debunked the propaganda and lie that the Zionists grabbed Muslim Arab territories. This source revealed that the so-called Zionists rather purchased land in question in vast quantities from uncoerced, willing sellers who were legal land owners. This source is absolutely reliable and unimpeachable because he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem–  the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974).

Here’s a somewhat lengthy report from Frontpage Magazine:

El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920’s onward, until the creation of the State of

Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant.  He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine.  He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War II, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler’s Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German “final solution.”   During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here).

As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission.

The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions.  After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937.  The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

“The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. Thefellaheen (Arab peasants)are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report.  It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine  Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here.  Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness.  He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned?  Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

Hitler and the Grand Mufti

Hitler and the Grand Mufti

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?

MUFTI: No.

SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.

SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs?

MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed.  Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners.  Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

Here’s another factual information that debunks the dishonest claim that the ‘Jews stole Arab land':

Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. 18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” Ben-Gurion said “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.” 19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry. 20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: “They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.” 21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer. 22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al–Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded. 23

The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased. . . . there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” 24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities. 25

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping” (emphasis in the original). — Transjordan’s King Abdullah 26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews. 27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.” 28

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As’ad el–Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews. 30

To useful idiots (both Liberals and Libertarians), know the facts first before spouting anti-Israel propaganda.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. November 25, 2012 3:38

    A facebook friend of mine, Vincit Amor, wrote this about some Libertarians (note: I consider myself a Libertarian, but I am not an anarchist nor Jew-hater):

    Most of these party Libertarians, including John Jay Myers, are not Statists. That’s why I feel like giving credit for this sort of America-hating dishonesty solely to the Progressives doesn’t quite fit.

    We’re watching Libertarians, who are certainly not statists subscribe to the exact same load of shit that the Progressives do including all of the same talking points. The word manipulation, false moral equivalencies and lack of use of logic, reason, and facts are a part of it, but the similarities go further than that. We’re seeing the Libertarians adopt the language of the Progressive left, using terms like “Neocon”, “bankster”, “warmonger”, “war criminal”, “war for oil”, “war for Israel” and so on.

    It’s looking like libertarians have become just another bunch of laughable hippies who find it more important to ‘stick it to the man’ than to uphold any of their other principles of minimal state intervention in private affairs, personal responsibility, equality before the law, and free people enjoying a free market.

    The infection among the Party Libertarians, from what I can read, seems to be rooted in the Non-Aggression Principle of Murray Rothbard. We even saw John Jay Myers here state that his pholosophy is rooted in a Jewish Philosopher so it’s *impossible* for him to be an anti-Semite. These people then will turn Rothbards work around based on the foggy and weak definition of aggression and first cause, thus turning the NAP into a manifesto to condemn any case of countries defending themselves because if you look far back enough in history, that country is the aggressor at some point and therefore must ‘have it coming’.

    By this philosophy, Iran’s at the same time not a threat at all, but if it every does nuke America or Israel, we ‘had it coming’ because Iran is only defending against the CIA which installed the Shah in the 50s (Ron Paul actually preaches this)

    By this philosophy, Israel is not under attack, but is the aggressor and thus anything and everything that the terrorists (sorry, ‘freedom fighters’) do to Israel is justified.

    By this philosophy, any and all conflicts that the United States gets involved in are our fault because of inherent guilt of aggression by association with any Western Power that ever occupied that territory in the past.

    By this philosophy, I’ve even seen it argued by Libertarians that the Soviet Union of all places was the victim of the Cold War. It won’t take you a lot of google searching to find more of the same, especially if you throw in the magic buzz-words (warmonger, neocon, WN, zionist, bankster)

    • November 25, 2012 3:38

      Thanks for that comment!

      “The word manipulation, false moral equivalencies and lack of use of logic, reason, and facts are a part of it, but the similarities go further than that. We’re seeing the Libertarians adopt the language of the Progressive left, using terms like “Neocon”, “bankster”, “warmonger”, “war criminal”, “war for oil”, “war for Israel” and so on.”

      — I strongly agree with what he said. They indeed adopt the moral equivalence trap of the liberals. They even call anyone who supports Israel as “statists”. I’ve met a number of self-claimed Libertarians and they all have almost the same mentality, style and logical fallacies.

      Their evaluation of the Israel problem goes like this–

      * Israel is a Statist country because it stole Arab land
      * The Arab Palestinians’ terrorism is justified because they’re victims of Jewish land grabbing.
      * Therefore if you support Israel, you’re a statist and you support land grabbing.

      They also say Israel and Palestine are both statists, so both of them are guilty. That means Israel cannot be said to be defending itself against its enemies and that the Palestinians’ terrorism and attacks on Israel are justified. The Israelis simply “deserved” it, these Libertarians say.

      Of course, it’s unfair to generalize all Libertarians, but the entire Libertarian establishment or the Libertarian Party has joined the Liberals in condemning Israel.

      The Ludwig Von Mises Institute (and its website Mises.org) has been publishing a number of anti-Israel articles. Consider this article (http://mises.org/daily/3285) that shows the Libertarians’ moral equivalence trap. The author proposes a Libertarian solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict: “to abolish both the Israeli and Palestinian states.”

      This Libertarian solution, the author says, “would, without a doubt, free the region of a great deal of the conflicts experienced today”, because there would be no more State of Israel for all Palestinian militant groups to get rid of. The Libertarian private protection would be set up, according to the author, to take on the task “of offering police and military protection”.

      This article was published in 2009. In 2011 Hamas toppled Fatah and drafted and issued its Constitution that calls for the annihilation of Israel and its inhabitants. It appears that Libertarianism has become not only anti-history but anti-reality as well.

      Mr. Amor is right in attributing the infection to Rothbards’ non-aggression principle.

      However, like I said: “The problem with the Libertarians is that they tend to think purely in terms of ‘economics’. Most Libertarians (notice the capital ‘L’: they’re members of the Libertarian Party) believe that statism can only be solved by economic education. They believe that the statists advocate and promote socialistic programs and measures because of their ignorance of economics. In the minds of the Libertarians who obviously pay lip-service to liberty and capitalism, the root cause of world’s crisis lies mainly on the people’s lack of economic education and the only way to solve this problem is to teach the people proper economic knowledge. I strongly do not agree with this worldview. People embrace destructive socialistic economic measures simply because they embrace collectivism. In some cases, people commit suicide bombing and acts of terrorism not because of poverty and economic ills, but mainly because they embrace a totalitarian religious ideology.” http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/inside-the-libertarian-mind-israel-is-the-aggressor-because-it-invaded-palestine/

      • December 1, 2012 3:38

        What’s really driving some Libertarians and most Liberals towards appeasement with Hamas is fear, nothing else. The feeling of fear lurks behind their seemingly rational stand of appeasement.

        If we put aside fear for a moment and be truly rational, then we can look back a little bit into the background of this seemingly endless conflict:

  2. November 26, 2012 3:38

    And this antipinoy blog site is pro Obama, global warming advocates, pro Penoy, pro choice, pro gay, pro same-sex inercourse, pro pedophile.

    In short, trying hard to be prog heh.

    Froi, an inciteful post.

  3. LiberalFascism101 permalink
    December 2, 2012 3:38

    The problem you’re having is coming to terms with the simple fact that many, if not most, Libertarians are Leftovers – people that came over from the Left and took their anti-Western, anti-White, anti-Christian hatred with them. It’s very easy for Libertarians to believe the world is divided wholly into two camps: Oppressor and Oppressed. Libertarians already believe that economic systems are a moral and sacred force. Like Marx, many Libertarians believe that economic systems are deterministic. The only real difference is the system, but not the absurd ideology.

    Both the Leftists and Libertarians see Israel as a country built by bomb-dropping Christian Colonialists under Truman and financed by “Zionist Banksters”. Libertarians, like Leftists, will say that borders don’t matter, which is why they’ll clamor for amnesty. The Libertarian, like the Leftist, will mass migrate to affect area politics. Again, magically, borders don’t matter? No because what they both really mean is – NATIONS don’t matter. To the Leftist, it’s because they want to rule the world. To the Libertarian, it’s because they’re so enamored with the “individual” they’re just too stupid to figure out how or why governments (groups) are formed in a real world. They hate Israel because it’s a Nation that fiercely defends its borders, but for different reasons.

    Having said this, Jews have done nothing to build friends but plenty to build enemies. The only people that give a shit about them are right-wing, white, Evangelicals in America – the people that both Libertarians and Leftists hate the most, especially the Jewish ones. In the media, in their homes, and on the streets they demonize, demean, insult, and attack the only people that would fight to save them. These “simple” people have been denied a legitimate voice by the people they’re helping. What’s more, they’re entire position on the matter has been so distorted that tinfoil-hat wearing crackpots like Noam Chomsky have concocted embarrassing explanations to maintain their belief that these folks are truly sinister. In this Chomsky bears little difference with Rand.

    In short, good luck Jews! You’re gonna need it!

Trackbacks

  1. Israel nunca robo tierras | PATRIA JUDÍA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 245 other followers

%d bloggers like this: